I read the official rules of the forum and found some of them puzzling, but this isn't about the rules posted on the official list, this is about one stated by a moderator recently in a thread about evolution, here is the quote:

Attempting to promulgate macroevolution as anything but hypothetical is not only disingenuous, but a flagrant violation of forum rules as well.

Consider this a warning…

My first question is is it actually a rule of the forum that I have to present my opinion as a hypothetical, using phrases such as "what if" and "if this were the case then..."? This seems like an unreasonable rule to me that severely hinders communication and I see no reason for it. I do not consider macroevolution to be hypothetical, that is not my position, am I not allowed to argue my position?

My second question is whether or not this rule (if it is indeed a rule) applies equally to the other side of the debate. Are creationists required to speak of creationism as if it were only a hypothetical? I have seen many instances where this does not occur. If this is not the case then can someone explain the blatant double standard that exists here?

I'm hoping someone can clear this up and I am hoping I am misunderstanding the statement I quoted, or that the mod who made it was in error, otherwise I see little value in posting here and I see the stated intent of the forum (civil discourse on the question of orgin) to be a farce.

I read the official rules of the forum and found some of them puzzling, but this isn't about the rules posted on the official list, this is about one stated by a moderator recently in a thread about evolution, here is the quote:

Attempting to promulgate macroevolution as anything but hypothetical is not only disingenuous, but a flagrant violation of forum rules as well.

Consider this a warning…My first question is is it actually a rule of the forum that I have to present my opinion as a hypothetical, using phrases such as "what if" and "if this were the case then..."? This seems like an unreasonable rule to me that severely hinders communication and I see no reason for it. I do not consider macroevolution to be hypothetical, that is not my position, am I not allowed to argue my position?

First – If you indeed read the forum rules (as I have to take your word that you have), you will quickly notice that it states:

Equivocation, particularly regarding what "evolution" means. It is intellectually dishonest to claim that micro-evolution (something everyone agrees occurs) proves that all life originates from a common ancestor.

What this means is that “microevolution” is not at issue, as microevolution is nothing more than “adaptation WITHIN a kind/species”, and is accepted by most everyone. “MACRO” evolution, on the other hand is a hypothesis; there is absolutely NO evidence that life sprang-fourth from primordial ooze to become Man (and everything else). Ergo, it takes FAR more faith to believe in MACRO-evolution, than it does to believe that and Initial Intelligent Causer, Necessary Being, or what the Christian theist calls “God”.Second – YES… This IS indeed a rule!Third – YES it is indeed reasonable for you to say “what if” if the assertion you are attempting to promulgate is an unproven hypothesis.Fourth – It doesn’t matter what you consider, or do not consider to be hypothetical, because you have no foundational leg to stand on if you are going to attempt to assert that macroev0olution is a fact.

And Lastly – YOUR communication is hindered if, and only if, YOU are going to come this forum and attempt to proselytize for macroevolution as a fact. Otherwise, you have absolutely NO communicative hindrances whatsoever.

My second question is whether or not this rule (if it is indeed a rule) applies equally to the other side of the debate. Are creationists required to speak of creationism as if it were only a hypothetical? I have seen many instances where this does not occur. If this is not the case then can someone explain the blatant double standard that exists here?

There is NO double standard whatsoever Codex. I can easily argue from the numerous historical eyewitness accounts of Jesus doing that which only God could do. This erases any hypothesis from the argument. I can further argue from the Ontological, Teleological, Transcendental (etc…) positions as well as other persuasive evidences, along with many other arguments, but I’ll most likely stick with the historical, as it is far more than enough.

I'm hoping someone can clear this up and I am hoping I am misunderstanding the statement I quoted, or that the mod who made it was in error, otherwise I see little value in posting here and I see the stated intent of the forum (civil discourse on the question of orgin) to be a farce.

Thank you.

No, you are not misunderstanding.

Yes, it is cleared up.

Yes, there will be little value if you are going to attempt argue the hypothetical MACRO as fact; as this type of equivocation will not be allowed at this forum, as per the rules that YOU agreed to PRIOR to being accepted as a member of this forum.

The civility of the discourse is only determinant on your attempts to divert from honest conversation concerning that which is OPINION, and that which is FACT.

Now, my question is this “Why are you attempting to get away with “Complaining about board moderation” on the open forum?

I’m fairly adept at spotting internet trolls, and I must say that Codex’s posts did not strike me as trolling. He seemed genuinely intent on following the forum rules, hence why he took the time to question them. I have been looking for the post (or posts) that resulted in his being banned and I cannot seem to find them. Would you mind linking me to the specific thread?

I’m fairly adept at spotting internet trolls, and I must say that Codex’s posts did not strike me as trolling. He seemed genuinely intent on following the forum rules, hence why he took the time to question them. I have been looking for the post (or posts) that resulted in his being banned and I cannot seem to find them. Would you mind linking me to the specific thread?

Firstly – I deal with internet trolls on three different forums on a daily basis. I assure you that I am very adept at spotting them.

Secondly – There was absolutely no genuine intent in his baiting content and spectacle inducing posts. Further, had his questions been genuine and honest, he would have pm’ed admin or moderators with his questions and concerns, not made open forum inflammatory comments. That alone is the infantile tactic of an internet troll attempting to rabble-rouse and cause mayhem.

Third – As I plainly pointed out to him in a few posts; these are the rules that he (and everyone else in this forum) agreed to PRIOR to being accepted at this forum.

Fourth – You cannot seem to find them, because they have been removed to a place where only admin and moderators can view them. Further, it is the purview of the forum administrators and moderators to handle the trolls (etc…) and not that of the forum members.

Rather than leave trolling posts visible, we tend to hide them so that they do not waste forum members time as intended. There was at least one post he made that didn't even follow the conversation he was responding to whatsoever.

I’m fairly adept at spotting internet trolls, and I must say that Codex’s posts did not strike me as trolling. He seemed genuinely intent on following the forum rules, hence why he took the time to question them. I have been looking for the post (or posts) that resulted in his being banned and I cannot seem to find them. Would you mind linking me to the specific thread?

If he didn't mean for his posts to look trollish he must have really bad luck because they all do. Want to find a troll post? Just look at this thread.

Amazingly enough there are people who will attempt to argue against established rules, simply don't like them, but rules are always put in place to establish standards. For example, the US highway system has a system of rules that if you break them, and get caught, you pay for your infraction. You never see someone arguing in traffic court that "they simply don't like the traffic laws, and therefore aren't going to obey them" and then actually expect to get away with such nonsense. But this is exactly what Codex was attempting here. He doesn't like the rules of this forum (yes the same rules he agreed to abide by prior to being accepted as a member here), so he thought complaining about them in the open forum would be acceptable, and possibly garner him some support (hence Isabella's post # 9). This is as infantile as the child who throws a temper tantrum because they don't like spinach in their existence. As if not liking spinach will make it go away!! And (unfortunately), in some cases, with permissive and facilitating parents, they get exactly what they want.